Hi, Am Donnerstag, den 29.09.2011, 11:39 +0100 schrieb Simon Marlow: > > I’m not sure if I got your conclusion: Do you expect problems if the RTS > > and libraries were built against different versions of libffi, or not?
> To answer your question: yes I would expect problems. Thanks for your assessment. Matthias, I hope you understand why I would not drop the libffi dependencies from the Haskell packages; better safe than sorry. I can supervise the resulting binNMU-orgy, if you prefer. > My question was: > how do other (non-Haskell) packages on Debian that contain static > libraries deal with this problem? We should follow whatever approach is > used by others. I’m actually not sure if we have this situation (various interdepending static libraries dynamically linking libffi). OCAML might be in a similar situation, but it seems that they don’t use libffi. Their packages do, however, all seem to have a dependency on libc6 which corresponds to our situation. Only that a so-name bump of libc is probably less frequent than one in libffi... Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim "nomeata" Breitner Debian Developer nome...@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: nome...@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
